Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating the parental rights of A.M., the putative father of P.T.D., holding that the district court was not required to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) when terminating A.M.’s parental rights.After P.T.D. was removed from Mother’s custody, the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division identified P.T.D. as an Indian child subject to the ICWA. See 25 U.S.C. 1912. Later, the Department filed a petition to terminate A.M.’s parental rights as P.T.D.’s putative father. By that time, P.T.D. had been in foster care for nearly two years, and A.M. had no meaningful contact with P.T.D., nor had he established a relationship with the child. The district court determined that termination of A.M.’s parental rights was in P.T.D.’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the requirements of ICWA were inapplicable to the facts of this case and that the district court’s decision to terminate A.M.’s parental rights was not clearly erroneous. View "In re P.T.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to his daughter, M.B., holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Father argued that the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division violated his due process rights when it withheld discovery and that the district court erroneously determined that the Department met its burden under Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-609(1)(f) to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Father failed to establish that the Department’s failure to provide complete discovery amounted to a due process violation; (2) this Court declines to review Father’s claim that his treatment plans were inappropriate; and (3) the district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, and its conclusions of law were correct. View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two children, holding that the court erred in proceeding with termination of parental rights in the absence of a conclusive tribal determination regarding each child’s status as an Indian child defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a threshold determination of whether the two children were Indian children based on a conclusive tribal determination of tribal membership and eligibility in the Blackfeet Tribe. The Court noted that the district court may re-enter judgment against Mother on the merits of its prior findings of fact and conclusions of law if it found and concluded on a conclusive tribal determination that the two children are not Indian children. View "In re D.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to G.W., holding that the district court did not clearly err in adjudicating the child a youth in need of care (YINC).After adjudicating G.W. a YINC, the district court adopted a treatment plan for Mother. Mother failed to complete her treatment plan, and the district court terminated her parental relationship with G.W. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred by adjudicating G.W. a YINC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate Mother’s due process rights by limiting the adjudicatory hearing to three hours; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that G.W. suffered psychological abuse or was at risk of suffering psychological abuse. View "In re G.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Vincent Toenjes’ (Vince) motion to modify his maintenance obligation to Joni Hardy (Joni), his former wife, and requiring him to pay Joni’s attorney fees and granted Joni attorney fees on appeal, holding that there was no error in the district court’s judgment.The district court concluded that, even where Vince had lost his job, the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement relating to maintenance had not become unconscionable under the facts of this case. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the district court (1) correctly interpreted the maintenance provisions of the parties’ marital and property settlement agreement; (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that the changed circumstances did not make the agreement unconscionable; and (3) properly granted attorney fees to Joni based on the terms of the settlement agreement. Further, Joni was entitled to attorney fees on appeal under the same provision of the settlement agreement. View "In re Marriage of Toenjes" on Justia Law

The district court erred in treating Bryan Larson’s appeal of the justice court’s denial of his motion to dissolve a final order of protection as an appeal of the order of protection.After Shoshon Anderson and Bryan Larson were divorced, Anderson filed for a temporary order of protection. The justice court issued a final order of protection against Larson in 2015. The final order of protection expires in 2019. In 2017, Larson filed a motion to dissolve the final protection order. The justice court denied the motion. Larson appealed. The district court treated the appeal as an appeal of the order of protection itself and denied it as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Larson’s appeal as untimely because Larson sought to dissolve the final order of protection, not to appeal it. View "In re Marriage of Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his minor children, X.B. and I.B.On appeal, Father argued that the district court abused its discretion in determining that he did not successfully complete his treatment plan and in concluding that the conduct or condition rendering him unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Father failed successfully to complete an appropriate treatment plan and did not err in concluding that Father’s conduct or condition rendering him unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable amount of time. View "In re X.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Petitioner’s request to review the Standing Master’s order denying Petitioner relief in this dissolution proceeding on the basis that Petitioner's objections to the order lacked specificity under Mont. Code Ann. 3-5-126(2).After Petitioner’s marriage was dissolved, Petitioner moved the district court to enforce the debts and liabilities provision incorporated into the parties’ dissolution decree. The Standing Master denied relief. Petitioner filed a notice of specific objections to the Standing Master’s order and a motion requesting that the district court review it. The district court denied the request, concluding that Petitioner’s objections to the order lacked specificity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in determining that Petitioner failed specifically to object to the Standing Master’s order under section 3-5-126(2). View "In re Marriage of Scrantom" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their children, holding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the parents’ respective drug test results at the termination hearing, but the error was harmless.At the termination hearing, the district court admitted each parent’s drug testing results through the children’s court appointed special advocate (CASA) worker. The district court subsequently terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their children, finding that the parents each failed to complete several aspects of their respective treatment plans. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the plain language and legislative history of Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-112(4), the district court erred in admitting the parents’ drug test results at the hearing, but the error did not result in substantial prejudice to the parents and did not warrant reversal. View "In re I.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Mother’s motion to amend parenting plan on the basis that Mother failed to establish a changed circumstance and granting Father’s motion for child support calculation and motion for attorney fees. The Court held (1) the district court erred in concluding that there was no change in circumstance pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-219(1) that would require a hearing, and this case must be remanded for a hearing and determination of whether amendment of the parenting plan was in the child’s best interests; (2) because reversal on the above issue was required, the court’s award to Father of attorneys’ fees and costs must be vacated; and (3) because this case had been remanded, it was appropriate to vacate the monthly child support calculated by the district court and remand for calculation of child support consistent with this opinion. View "In re Marriage of Schilling" on Justia Law